Criminal Justice Bill

Debate between Tracey Crouch and Stella Creasy

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about this very important Bill, and it is of course a pleasure to follow Scottish National party spokesman the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

There are some very positive aspects to the Bill that are welcome. Tackling violence against women and girls, giving powers to law enforcement agencies to respond to technological change, and strengthening the law to protect the public from violence and intimidation are much-needed measures that will certainly reassure my constituents. There are communities across my constituency that have been the victims of appalling antisocial behaviour in recent years. The police and local councils are doing what they can to protect these communities with the application and implementation of community protection notices and then public spaces protection orders, but one challenge that the police have faced is that many of the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour are under 16. Lowering the age of a CPN to 10 will help the police in tackling antisocial behaviour and is much appreciated.

However, I am not comfortable with parts of this Bill—the last Criminal Justice Bill before the next election—and there are also things that are missing from it. I shall be as brief as possible. I apologise to those who have provided some excellent information, and I will probably do them a disservice as a consequence. I will also be blunt, as there is no other way of saying this, and I find myself being slightly firmer on this than the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper): I did not work as a Minister and as a Back Bencher on the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, only to see rough sleeping criminalised again via a different piece of legislation.

I get that there is an issue with aggressive begging. We on the ministerial taskforce, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) was very much a part of, were always aware of that. There was always a view that other pieces of legislation, such as the existing antisocial behaviour legislation, could cope with aggressive begging being transferred in. At no point did we, either as a taskforce or as part of the Vagrancy Act repeal, hear evidence about aggressive rough sleeping.

Rough sleepers require holistic support. They often have extremely complex needs, including significant mental health needs. Visibility may be uncomfortable for many, but it also enables support workers from the many brilliant charities and local authorities to reach out to them. Issuing prevention notices does nothing to solve the problem, but pushes them further away from the solution. Sentencing them to prison creates nothing more than extra problems for the person and the creaking prison estate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

What the hon. Lady is saying is incredibly powerful, and I wholeheartedly agree with her. Does she agree that one challenge we face is that we have a homelessness crisis? In my local area, our brilliant night shelters are already full, and the people working with the homeless would find it harder to help them if they had a criminal record. It would be counter-productive to the very good work we all know needs to happen to prevent homelessness so that it is one night only.

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. People who find themselves sleeping rough on the streets are in a desperate situation, and the provisions in the Bill will do nothing to help them. Our local authorities, which often get a bad rap for the consequences of rough sleeping, have many officers doing brilliant work in trying to support rough sleepers. We need a holistic approach to tackling that issue. We do not need to criminalise them through these provisions, some of which, by the way, are laughable, respectfully. We have the idea that a prevention notice can be served to a rough sleeper at their last known address in writing. I am not entirely sure why that provision is even in there.

The point is that we need to be supporting people who are rough sleeping. I get that there is an issue with aggressive begging. In fact, various mayors across our metropolitan cities have said that, but rough sleeping does not need to be criminalised. We got rid of that as part of the Vagrancy Act repeal, which was supported by the Government. All we are doing is bringing that criminalisation in by the back door.

I will support the Bill on Second Reading because of the other measures, but I strongly urge the Government to remove the clauses on nuisance rough sleeping from the Bill. If not, I will certainly lend my name to amendments to remove those clauses from the Bill, on which I hope I would get cross-party support as a consequence. There are other ways of dealing with rough sleeping, rather than criminalising people.

The Bill also contains welcome measures to improve public confidence in policing after significant failings within forces to identify and investigate criminal behaviours. Those are welcome, given the shocking high-profile cases of recent years, but I suggest we reflect on how we protect good officers who do their job in challenging and fast-moving situations from prosecution. The Times on Saturday reported on the prosecution of PC Paul Fisher, who crashed en route to south London, where Sudesh Amman, a convicted terrorist, had stabbed two members of the public. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that it

“undermines the confidence of all officers using their powers to keep the public safe.”

He is spot on.

A constituent of mine—a frontline Metropolitan police dog handler—was sentenced today having been found guilty of actual bodily harm after apprehending a dangerous criminal, who was subsequently sentenced to 14 months in prison. At the time, he was hailed “brave” and a “hero”. A complaint made from prison was dismissed by every level of the internal standards process, and it was only when the prisoner appealed again that it ended up in court, with the shocking guilty verdict. My constituent’s 21 years of exemplary service are in tatters due to a system that actively works against frontline officers and instead advocates for passive policing. We do need to improve standards of policing across our forces, but, at the same time, we need to protect those officers who are doing their jobs.

I turn to issues that would be helpful inclusions in the Bill. This morning, the first part of the inquiry into the depraved acts of David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was published. The families of the victims of Fuller are always at the front of our minds when we, the MPs whose constituencies are covered by the trust and where many of them live, are informed about the inquiry. We collectively agree that the Government, the NHS and the trust should accept and act on the recommendations of Sir Jonathan’s report without delay.

Fuller will rightly serve the rest of his life in prison for the heinous crimes he committed, but there are two additional aspects of his crimes that the Government must also act on. First, the woefully short maximum sentence of two years for anyone found guilty of the sexual assault of a dead body needs to be substantially increased to at least 10 years, as per Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the previous Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Secondly, the current legislation applies only to the sexual assault of a dead body that involves penetration. Given the sensitivity of this matter, and on this day when coincidently the inquiry published its report and we are debating the Bill, I do not want to go into further details, but, in short, non-penetrative sexual assault of a dead body is not included under existing legislation, and that needs to be changed. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is currently abroad on Government business, will table an amendment to the Bill to that end. I truly hope that we will never see such depravity again, but in memory of those who were victims of Fuller’s crimes, we must ensure that the offence covers all acts of assault and that sentences are increased significantly.

I turn to an entirely different point. I am surprised not to see in the Bill a specific offence of tailgating at football matches. The House will have seen Baroness Casey’s report following the violence at the Euro 2020 finals. Tailgating causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium as well as other football matches across the country—I witnessed that as I experienced the surge of those illegally attempting entry to Wembley as I queued to get into the final. I understand that the Home Office agrees with the recommendation for a specific offence and that King’s counsel has recommended to the FA that that can be done through either an update to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 via statutory instrument, or adding it to the Bill. Given that the Bill is in front of us, it feels like a missed opportunity not to include that offence in it, so I will happily table an amendment to ensure that it is in place long before we host Euro 2028.

Finally, there is one other point that I was surprised not to see in the Bill. There are many reasons for us to be disappointed that the Government dropped the kept animals Bill, but one particular reason, which is relevant to this Bill, is that it would have introduced a specific pet abduction offence. Given that there is no debate about the harm and impact of pet theft, I was surprised not to see the offence included in this already wide-ranging bill. There has been an increase in pet theft, and the Government’s pet theft taskforce believes that pet owners should not live in fear of this cruel crime. Since this was in our manifesto, I hope the Government will either table an amendment or support a Back Benchers’ amendment that creates a stand-alone offence and bring reassurance to the millions of pet owners across the country.

I appreciate that I have raised a varied list of points, and that others wish to speak and I am running out of time. In summary, this is an important Bill—our last Criminal Justice Bill before the election. There are things in it that we need to do. There are things in it that we do not need to do. There are still things that we need to put into it. Fortunately, we have an excellent ministerial team responsible for the Bill. I look forward to working with them as it progresses through Parliament.

High-cost Credit

Debate between Tracey Crouch and Stella Creasy

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I was proud to support his Bill and am sorry that it will not make its way through Parliament. I hope that the Government are listening carefully to the cross-party support that it is getting and will take forward some of the sensible measures proposed in it.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on introducing this debate on an important issue about which many of us feel strongly. It is also important to congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has done a great deal to raise the issue both inside and outside Parliament. During many parts of her speech today I was nodding furiously, as I found myself in violent agreement with her on some of the important issues that she raised.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has left the Chamber. He has done a great deal of work on credit unions. I also fundamentally support the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has done on improving financial education.

The debate has been interesting and I will try not to repeat the points hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that the sector is at a crossroads, which was an interesting comment. We must ensure that we take the right path. High-cost credit is an incredibly important issue for many of our constituents and will be in future for all the reasons hon. Members have outlined.

High-cost credit is defined as credit

“comprising of payday and other short-term small-value loans”.

However, it is important to note that it is not the preserve of alternative financial services providers. There are problems in the wider credit industry. The example I will give is highlighted by StepChange. Its research shows that

“a borrower making minimum payments for 18 months on a typical”

credit

“card for an average balance of just over £1,800 pays £44 for every £100 borrowed”.

It is important that we do not exclude from the debate means of credit other than payday loans.

When I first spoke in Parliament about high-cost credit, I drew on my experience. When I came to London as a 21-year-old graduate, I worked as a researcher in Parliament, earning £7,000 a year. I got myself into a stupid amount of debt—£15,000—very quickly, not because I was trying to pay rent, meet bills and buy food, but because I wanted to keep up with the Joneses. I wanted to go out wearing nice clothes and to have good evenings out with my friends, all of whom worked in the City and earned a lot more money than I was earning. I borrowed a lot of money on credit cards, I was always at my overdraft limit, and borrowed money on store cards. I bought things on store cards that people normally pay for with small cash. I could not afford to live the life I wanted to lead in my not-very-well-paid job as a researcher.

[Stella Creasy]

I make no comment about the friendships the hon. Lady had, but does she agree that one worrying aspect of the debate on the payday loan industry—the evidence is clear—is that 80% of payday loans are for basics? They are for paying rent, and travel and food costs. People cut back as far as they can, so those costs are not equivalent to keeping up with the Joneses. It is important that we make that distinction—people are trying to cover unavoidable costs.

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree with the hon. Lady. To be perfectly honest, I was stupid. I learned a lesson. It took me seven years to pay back my debt. I learned that lesson thanks to the bank. I got to the stage of hiding from the bills and not going out. I was in a miserable place, and—the hon. Member for Islwyn will be pleased to hear this—Lloyds TSB took me aside and said, “Your credit rating is dreadful. You keep going over your overdraft limit. You will be in serious trouble if you don’t deal with this now.” The bank cut up my credit and store cards, which was incredibly upsetting, and put me on a repayment programme. The problem today is that banks do not necessarily provide the personal banking they did back in 1996-97 when I was getting myself into debt, and people are finding alternative ways in which to deal with their debt problems.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Tracey Crouch and Stella Creasy

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

That is a good point. In fact, what troubles me most is the impact on consumers. As we have been told by Members in all parts of the House, these companies prey on people who are incredibly vulnerable, and we need to ensure that the industry behaves much more responsibly.

A response to the Government’s call for evidence on consumer credit is due shortly, and I look forward to the findings of the review. I have always had some sympathy for the proposal of a rate cap. However, it is interesting to note that Citizens Advice does not share the hon. Lady’s view, and nor does the money-saving expert Martin Lewis.

[Stella Creasy]

It is true that Citizens Advice opposes a cap on interest rates, but I think the hon. Lady will find that both it and Martin Lewis have been very positive about the proposal for a cap on the total cost of credit, which the new clause would allow to be investigated. I hope that the hon. Lady will correct the record accordingly.

[Tracey Crouch]

The total cost of credit involves more than just the high-cost lending industry, but the hon. Lady spent most of her speech talking about individual high-cost credit lending companies such as Wonga. We must find a focus, and the fact is that wider issues of consumer credit are involved. I hope that the review will come up with a solution on which we can all agree.

The Government are considering specific product regulation as part of their draft Financial Services Reform Bill. Under the proposals to establish the financial conduct authority, a new model of conduct regulation will be established that will use early and proactive intervention to ensure that consumers are protected. That is a far more pragmatic solution than the blunt instrument of taxation, which, as I noted earlier, could have the adverse and opposite effect of creating a greater problem.